Was 9-11 a government conspiracy?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Euler is my Hero, Jan 18, 2006.

  1. Euler is my Hero Math Addict Registered Senior Member

    A couple of days ago I watched a documentary on the theory that the terrorist attacks were actively caused by the US government and subsequently covered up as an attack by Al-Qaida. It was about an hour long and was actually really well done compared with the other stuff I've watched about this conspiracy theory. The video can be found here . A lot (if not most) of what this documentary presents as "evidence" is circumstantial at best and a lot of it could be explained without a conspiracy.

    Nonetheless, I do think that this documentary brings up some good questions and inconsistencies in what the government claims to have happened on 9/11. Now I am definitely not saying that I believe the government attacked and killed its own citizens, but I do find this documentary incredibly interesting.

    Anyone else seen it? What are everyone's thoughts on this theory and such?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    The government is convering something up, but it's not that they planned 9/11, I think it's just negligence and incompetence.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    like all good conspiracy theories, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Whenever I read or see some conspiracy theories, I always do a bit of thinking, then ask myself "How many people would it take to pull it off?" and "How could so many people be convinced to never, ever tell the secret?"

    Most any of the conspiracy theories that I've even known can be debunked quickly by analyzing just those two simple questions. The second one, keeping the secret, is the one that's most often the determining factor ...how many "top secret" people are now writing books and going on speaking tours to tell the whole fuckin' world their "secrets"?

    Baron Max
  8. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    indeed, baron.
  9. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    The conspirators do not have to keep the conspiracy secret. They just have to keep anybody who would talk about the conspiracy marginalized. This is the lesson that I get from the Kennedy assassination.

    The 9-11 commision ignored the issues the conspiracy theorists wanted resolved. Why?
  10. AmishRakeFight Remember, remember. Registered Senior Member

    Perhaps they were having a group laugh at how ridiculous the conspiracy theorists sounded?
  11. QuarkMoon I Registered Senior Member

    The attacks themselves were not a government conspiracy, but some of the specific details about the attacks are. For example, the government claims that Flight 93 was brought down by a scuffle between the terrorists and the passengers, but most believe the plane was shot down. There is evidence pointing to it, and we can also point to the "slip of the tounge" Rumsfeld had about the attacks.

    Also, some people think it was a missle that hit the Pentagon, not a jet. However, I believe that the 747 did hit the Pentagon, but it followed the missle. I think the airforce tried to shoot it down before it hit the Pentagon but failed, and instead the missle hit the Pentagon and than the plane hit right after.
  12. Happeh Registered Senior Member

    Is your real name Rip Van Winkle? Where you been the past 5 years? We all talked about it, realized it was true, shook our heads about it and are watching for the repeat to justify an attack on Iran.
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    For such a well-publicised event, your conspiracy theories seem a little far fetched.

    What's the evidence? What "slip of the tongue"?

    We know for sure that a plane is unaccounted for, unless it hit the Pentagon. So, I think there is no doubt a plane hit.

    So, where's the evidence for the missile?

    And what's more likely - the Pentagon was hit by just a plane, or a plane AND a missile? Common sense says a plane on its own is enough to explain the observed facts.

    What makes you think that?
  14. QuarkMoon I Registered Senior Member

    Well-publicised yes, but well documented? How is it that the WTC attacks were caught on numerous cameras but the Pentagon attack was not?

    Dumbsfeld's slip can be found right here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/index.html

    The evidence is that the Pennsylvania state police said debris from the crash has shown up about 8 miles away in a residential area where local media quoted some residents as seeing flaming debris from the sky: http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

    So, wreckage found miles away. If the plane hit straight into the ground as reported by the government, than the wreckage would be confined to a small area. If the plane is flying straight and level at high speed when it first touches the ground, then the wreckage will distribute itself into kind of like a fan shape over quite a large area. If the plane starts to break up in the air, particularly at significant height, then it will start to distribute pieces that will travel with the wind and be spread over sometimes many hundreds of square miles.

    I agree.

    No concrete evidence, although, does this look like a Boeing 747 jet to you? http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

    Just my theory of events from piecing various evidence together. The official story that Flight 93 was brought down by a scuffle with the passengers is a little hard to believe given the evidence and the Dumbsfeld slip. And the official story that the jet hit the Pentagon sounds good, but that security footage tells a different story and it would explain the damage.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2006
  15. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    ROFL and to think last night Quark was castigating me for spreading Anti-American conspiracicies ! Ill make a note of this one .
  16. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

  17. QuarkMoon I Registered Senior Member

    There is a difference between saying the government orchastrated the attacks and saying the government covered up certain aspects of it. Terrorists brought down the towers, and terrorists hit the Pentagon. The little details in between is what I'm talking about.

    See, Brian, you can have theories and ideas without being a looney, however sadly for you, you have crossed that "looney" line miles ago.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. Alejandro -2 Minutes To Midnight- Registered Senior Member

    Every politician or official knows something like that would never stay a secret.

    As far as the plane in Pa. wasnt their a phone call from a passenger stating they were about to take over the plane or something like that.

    Too many other things to show it happened pretty much as we know it anything otherwise is pure fantasy.
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Just luck, really. The question is not so much why the Pentagon attack wasn't captured more, but why the WTC attacks were.

    Which would you say would be caught on film more often - the WTC or the Pentagon?

    So, this is it:

    Is that all there is? Pretty flimsy base on which to build a conspiracy theory, if you ask me. Rumsfled sounds like he was saying "the people who attacked the US in New York AND shot down the plane over Pennsylvania". But it doesn't make sense that these would be the same people - i.e. the terrorists - does it?

    This sounds like a simple slip of the tongue. If he'd thought about it, he probably would have said "crashed the plane in Pennsylvania", or something.

    This wreckage wasn't spread over hundreds of miles. I'm not a crash expert, so I can't really say whether 8 miles would be inconsistent with the generally accepted explanation. Can you? And can the (other) internet conspiracy theorists?

    Seeing a 747 crash into a building is not something you see every day. How do you know what to expect?

    I think the conspiracy theory is a little hard to believe. But then again, I find most flimsy conspiracy theories hard to believe...
  20. duendy Registered Senior Member

    i just feel you are being VERY naive if you DON'T understand how these power elites work......te very fact some of you are not sure it was an inside job bemuses me, considering the absurd offical stories etc

    also, did that docu mention anything about occult symbolism to do with 9/11??
    if ANYthing was to really put the bloody cherry on the bloody cake fo me it was finding out about occult symbolism all over '9/11'---explain THAT!
  21. QuarkMoon I Registered Senior Member

    But nothing? How can absolutely no one catch the Pentagon attack? Surely the Pentagon is a national landmark? Surely there would be people with cameras? I think there were cameras, and people did catch the attacks on tape. But they were confiscated. And the only footage allowed for release is a crappy security camera with frames missing. That's not suspicious to you in the slightest?

    Are you surprised? I said it was a slip of the tounge, I didn't tout it as irrefutable evidence for my theory. Although I must ask, how do you jump from the term "crash" to "shot" by pure accident if it had no truth behind it? Why would the term "shot" pop into his head if that wasn't what he was thinking about? Suspicious, no?

    I explained that in my post. If the plane was brought down by a scuffle, than there are two scenarios that would happen. The plane would crash straight into the ground (although if that happened than it would be quite difficult to fight someone since you would be weightless) and the debris would be spread out in a reletively small area. The second scenario is if it crashed parallel to the ground which means means it would have been traveling quite fast, than the debris would be spread out in a fan shape which means there would be certain areas where the wreckage would spread.

    However, what happened is debris was found scattered miles apart, with eye-witnesses claiming they saw burning debris falling from the sky. How do you explain that? Not even a tad bit suspicious?

    I can expect a bigger object and a larger explosion? Those planes are quite large I'll have you know.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Understood. I never claimed to have concrete evidence, however the evidence I have could certainly be considered suspicious at the very least.
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Why do you think that? Just probability?

    Has anybody complained about their footage being confiscated? After all, it would have been worth a lot of money to news programmes at the time.

    People make those kind of slips all the time. The plane crashed. Fell down, shot down, crashed down. All linked in the mind.

    Not particularly.

    Are you an expert on debris scatter patterns? I'm not, but maybe you are.

    How do I explain debris falling from the sky? Well, I'm not sure. How many eyewitnesses are we talking about? What do you know about them? Are they people whose stories are likely to be reliable? In fact, were there any eyewitnesses, or are these supposed eyewitnesses simply made up by internet conspiracy theorists? What kind of evidence do you have, apart from conspiracy sites?

    How does the size of the explosion compare to the sizes of the explosions as the planes went into the WTC, in your opinion? Much smaller? About the same? What were the comparative sizes of the planes in each case? How much fuel did they have on board? How far did they penetrate?

    I don't really expect you to have all the answers, but I'm trying to give you an idea of the kinds of questions I have when I hear this kind of thing. At this stage, the supposed evidence for the conspiracy is just too weak for me to take it seriously. But don't get me wrong: I haven't absolutely decided one way or the other.
  23. QuarkMoon I Registered Senior Member

    As a private citizen, that is all the evidence I can muster. I have answers to your questions, but you will say I am not qualified, which is true! So, I'll just leave it at that. I will say this, you called the post-gazette.com website a conspiracy website. It's not, it's a regular news outlet. Check their other news articles, you won't see any conspiracy theories, just news. That's where I got the "eye-witness and scattered debris" article.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2006

Share This Page